Executive Order 11821 re: Inflation Impact Statements

[Kludge]

Any older libertarians (or at least those more well-read than I) care to give me a history lesson on EO 11821? From my quick read-through, I've pieced together that EO 11821 required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council on Wage and Price Stability (CWPS) be provided with an Inflation Impact Statement (IIS)*, a.... statement of a proposed rule/regulation's inflationary impact by the agency which sought to put that rule/regulation in place, upon request. The CWPS provided critical feedback on the proposed legislation with various gov't agencies. The Ford-Hopkins Report, which outlined the initial progress of EO 11821 seemed generally favorable of the overall program, and suggested it be strengthened to better regulate bureaucracy (which seemed very wary of the paperwork and interrogation).


From the .pdf of the Hopkins report linked above:

Of course, what I'm not understanding is why this legislation was not extended. The only reason I heard of this was because I was listening to Gerald Ford's WIN speech. Was the IIS program covered by the media during the time it was proposed at all? What was the opposition to extending it, if any? This seems like fantastic, although ultimately minor, legislation to bring our bureaucracy under control and force transparency (IIS's were published for the public under the Federal Register, and I believe they're somewhere in the gov't's archive website, but I haven't looked).

*Yeah, I know it isn't the Austrian preferred usage for "inflation". This Order doesn't strike the root of real overall inflation, which is monetary expansion. This legislation was particularly to address concerns with extraordinary "inflation" in food and energy prices, which I imagine we'll be seeing soon.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Any older libertarians (or at least those more well-read than I) care to give me a history lesson on EO 11821? From my quick read-through, I've pieced together that EO 11821 required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Council on Wage and Price Stability (CWPS) be provided with an Inflation Impact Statement (IIS)*, a.... statement of a proposed rule/regulation's inflationary impact by the agency which sought to put that rule/regulation in place, upon request. The CWPS provided critical feedback on the proposed legislation with various gov't agencies. The Ford-Hopkins Report, which outlined the initial progress of EO 11821 seemed generally favorable of the overall program, and suggested it be strengthened to better regulate bureaucracy (which seemed very wary of the paperwork and interrogation).


From the .pdf of the Hopkins report linked above:

Of course, what I'm not understanding is why this legislation was not extended. The only reason I heard of this was because I was listening to Gerald Ford's WIN speech. Was the IIS program covered by the media during the time it was proposed at all? What was the opposition to extending it, if any? This seems like fantastic, although ultimately minor, legislation to bring our bureaucracy under control and force transparency (IIS's were published for the public under the Federal Register, and I believe they're somewhere in the gov't's archive website, but I haven't looked).

*Yeah, I know it isn't the Austrian preferred usage for "inflation". This Order doesn't strike the root of real overall inflation, which is monetary expansion. This legislation was particularly to address concerns with extraordinary "inflation" in food and energy prices, which I imagine we'll be seeing soon.

You can't predict what that "inflation" might be, at least with any accuracy. You have no idea how the regulation/rule will effect markets, only that it will distort, and ultimately raise prices. You never know by how much. Thus, IIS on it's face, is illegitimate, because if you could determine accurately statistics like this, then, central planning would work, but central planning never works. So, Austrians would reject it, because it would be inaccurate, hence, worthless or even detrimental.


Think of the market as one huge trial and error. Where resources are allocated most efficiently. The market is the only force that can achieve this. Our goal is to end all central planning. All legislative force in the economy. Austro-Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, etc. all want, a wholly voluntary capitalism; Laissez-Faire. So, why would any of us accept something that is contradictory to our beliefs, theories, and evidence? Instead of trying to calculate the damage to the economy that legislative efforts cause, why not end the root of the cause -- legislative efforts -- ?

 

[angelatc]

You can't predict what that "inflation" might be, at least with any accuracy. You have no idea how the regulation/rule will effect markets, only that it will distort, and ultimately raise prices. You never know by how much. Thus, IIS on it's face, is illegitimate, because if you could determine accurately statistics like this, then, central planning would work, but central planning never works. So, Austrians would reject it, because it would be inaccurate, hence, worthless or even detrimental.


Think of the market as one huge trial and error. Where resources are allocated most efficiently. The market is the only force that can achieve this. Our goal is to end all central planning. All legislative force in the economy. Austro-Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, etc. all want, a wholly voluntary capitalism; Laissez-Faire. So, why would any of us accept something that is contradictory to our beliefs, theories, and evidence? Instead of trying to calculate the damage to the economy that legislative efforts cause, why not end the root of the cause -- legislative efforts -- ?

I think you just gave a long explanation of why it should not have been extended, which, although morally, ethically and philosophically accurate, has absolutely no factual bearing on why it wasn't extended.

 

[angelatc]

On December 31, 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11949 extending Executive Order 11281 for an additional year and modifying the name of the required analyses to "Economic Impact Statements." On January 31, 1977, EPA issued revised guidelines that lowered the reporting threshold to $100 million, recommended the statements be called "Economic Impact Analyses" to avoid confusion with Environmental Impact Statements, and set a new criteria for treatment as a major rule of an impact causing an increase in demand or decrease in supply in excess of 3 percent for any of seventeen listed commodities.

http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epalib/r...621a387945df84de8525675700794178!OpenDocument

 

[angelatc]

Here Kludge:

http://books.google.com/books?id=QZ...ic Impact Statements" Executive Order&f=false

 

[Kludge]

Thanks, Angela.